Opinion: Like Rudy in 2008, will Hillary wait too long to start running?

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – Is Hillary Clinton the Rudy Giuliani of 2016 — an unbeatable frontrunner until the campaign fizzles out?

It’s hard to recall that the former mayor of New York, the hero of 9/11, led all the polls for the Republican presidential nomination through much of 2007, ahead of the 2008 primaries.

He had the name recognition, the fundraising connections, and the right mix in these pre-Tea Party times of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

He was so confident of his standing that he decided not to bother with retail politicking in Iowa and New Hampshire, preferring to wait and collect his delegates all at once in the big state primaries on Super Tuesday.

Alas for him, his poll numbers started to plummet in late 2007. The decision to ignore the early primaries proved to be fatal. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, written off as a has-been in these early months of the campaign, made a strong comeback. The rest is history.

WSJ Opinion: Jeb Bush Has a Good Shot in 2016

(13:52)

Hillary Clinton is in a different situation than Giuliani, for sure. For one thing, she made a very strong showing in 2008 even as Giuliani was fading into oblivion. And her starting point this time — as former first lady, former senator, and former secretary of state — is arguably even stronger.

But as Clinton dallies with her decision about running again in 2016, she risks missing the boat just as Giuliani did, as the uncontrollable momentum of the campaign sweeps along without her.

All eyes now are on Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat who is dominating the headlines and winning the YouTube sweepstakes.

It is these very paid speeches that have already damaged Clinton’s credibility on being able to stand up to moneyed interests.

Warren is still not running for president. But then neither is Clinton, and for the moment Warren is galloping ahead of Clinton in the race neither is running.

And now, after months of increasingly annoying coyness on Clinton’s part, we are told that she may not announce her intentions until April, instead of January as she has hinted before.

Huh? Just how and how soon these groups can spend their money on behalf of an official candidate would seem to be a secondary consideration to grabbing the political momentum.

Other commentators suggest that Clinton needs the time to refine her message after stumbling with some embarrassing gaffes in her initial forays last spring.

Really? Isn’t this the candidate who has the nomination sewn up because of the strength of her resumé, which makes her the best qualified potential nominee and able to hit the ground running?

But a third reason proffered by the Post article and other reports is the most baffling. Clinton, we are told, has scheduled paid speaking events through March and it would not be appropriate for a candidate to be collecting up to $300,000 a pop for speeches.

“Paid speeches,” the Post reporters add lamely, “are a significant source of revenue for a public figure who has no regular salary at the moment.”

Pul-lllease. This is the woman married to the former president who has collected $100 million in speaking fees over the past 14 years, and she needs to eke out a little more extra cash to get by?

It is these very paid speeches that have already damaged Clinton’s credibility on being able to stand up to moneyed interests.

How can the image of Clinton grubbing around for a few more speaking fees, while Warren is raining down fire and brimstone on banks and Republicans, possibly help her politically?

The conventional wisdom is that Clinton’s lock on the nomination is unassailable, that Warren won’t run and that even if the Massachusetts senator does change her mind and enter the race the best she can hope for is to push Clinton to the left.

But last week more than 300 former campaign staffers for Barack Obama urged Warren to run because they know, they said, how “an unlikely candidate who no one thought had a chance” can build a movement and win an election. “We know that the improbable is far from impossible,” they said.

Even conservative commentator David Brooks, in a New York Times column this week titled “Warren Can Win,” dismissed this conventional wisdom, saying, “But, today, even for those of us who disagree with Warren fundamentally, it seems clear that she does have a significant and growing chance of being nominated.”

It’s still likely that Clinton will get the nomination, Brooks concludes. “But there is something in the air,” he adds. “Every day more Democrats embrace the emotion and view defined by Warren.”

Every day. This is what happened to Giuliani in 2007 as he sat back and watched the campaign roll by without him. It could be Clinton will wait until April and find that her party has moved on without her.

Even if a Clinton campaign for 2016 proves to have more substance than a Giuliani campaign in 2007, perhaps there’s another precedent from the 2008 campaign — a candidate who was simultaneously too entitled and too timid, and offered too little, too late: Hillary Clinton.

Intraday Data provided by SIX Financial Information and subject to terms of use.
Historical and current end-of-day data provided by SIX Financial Information. Intraday data
delayed per exchange requirements. S&P/Dow Jones Indices (SM) from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All quotes are in local exchange time. Real time last sale data provided by NASDAQ. More
information on NASDAQ traded symbols and their current financial status. Intraday
data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges. S&P/Dow Jones Indices (SM)
from Dow Jones & Company, Inc. SEHK intraday data is provided by SIX Financial Information and is
at least 60-minutes delayed. All quotes are in local exchange time.